dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I- INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 26,2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer solutions developer and services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "java developer" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body 
of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the 
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the record 
does not demonstrate that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and that the 
Petitioner will have an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. We will summarily dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGALFRAMEWORK 
An officer will summarily dismiss an appeal when the Petitioner does not identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
II. DISCUSSION 
The Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, as submitted, did not contain a brief or other 
statement explaining the basis for appeal. The Petitioner marked Box 1(b) in Part 3 of the Form 
I-290B to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of filing 
the appeal. However, we did not receive a brief or additional evidence within the allotted timeframe. 
Accordingly, the record is considered complete. 
Upon review of the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not specifically identified any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. Further, the Petitioner has 
made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in the Director's decision. As such, 
we will summarily dismiss the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Matter of 1- Inc. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
Cite as Matter of 1- Inc., ID# 171119 (AAO Oct. 26, 20 16) 
2